Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Nov 13

27

Who is keeping the promise to Glendale’s citizens?

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 27, 2013
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

The City Council meeting of November 26, 2013 had a raucous start, much like council meetings of old. The notion of putting citizen comments at the start of every meeting may come back to bite this council as they experienced their first hour long marathon of citizen commentary. I am not including the public commentary on the night of the Coyotes’ vote as that was to be expected. No, this time it was the opening salvo of a regular, assumed-to-be ho hum council meeting. It was anything but not just because of citizen commentary but because of all of the very serious issues that were up for a vote (more about those issues over the course of the next few blogs).

A majority of council did not comment about citizen commentary at the start of every meeting. Councilmember Sherwood did and made clear that he does not like it. It’s almost as if he considers citizen comments to be irrelevant and just an irritation that prevents him from performing what he considers to be the real business of council. His sentiment was arrogant to say the least. Then Councilmember Alvarez, who is wedded to citizen comments first, just had to rebut Sherwood’s remarks by saying, “When we were elected we were (sic) committed to be here.” How ironic as this is the councilmember who holds the record for her non-attendance at scads of meetings. She even has had the temerity when calling in to council meetings to hang up before the meeting’s conclusion and thus missed those all important citizen comments.

It looks like the Keeping the Promise anti casino group has seared the nerves of the casino supporters with their running of a TV ad and underwriting the costs of an anti casino letter penned by Mayor Weiers. They had their usual suspects…er, supporters out in force to speak on the TO’s behalf before the council. The usual mouthpieces have decided to become visible once again…Ken Jones and Arthur Thruston to name but two. Due to their advanced age they needed time to rest and recharge before becoming public gadflies again. Can you believe that Ken Jones was advocating for yet another public vote? This time his target is the casino. You’d think he would have learned that one needs to be careful what one wishes for. His last effort fizzled out like water dousing a fire. He also opined that the people of Glendale do not need Keeping the Promise running our city and buying city officials. Oh really? Guess he figures it’s okay when the Tohono O’odham appear as if they are buying city officials like Alvarez. He never took the time to complain about Alvarez and her antics with the Tohono O’odham.

Thruston, bless his heart, simply relies on picking and choosing his facts. Those that he doesn’t like, he ignores. He trots down to the podium with a handful of newspaper clippings and pontificates on issues culled from the newspapers (and of course, their, ahem, totally unbiased reportage). He fancies himself as a raconteur in the vein of a modern day Will Rodgers who once said, “you know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”                       

What engendered all of the citizen commentary was Item 12 of the Consent Resolution agenda accepting a grant of over $400,000 from the Gila River Tribe for the purchase of a fire truck. Yet, there was no comment from the citizens when council voted to accept a Tohono O’odham grant of $40,000+ to fund the Glendale Youth Project on October 22, 2013 – a scant month ago. In fact, Alvarez voted to accept that grant voicing praise and voted to reject tonight’s grant. Could her bias be showing? What’s changed? The acceptance of a grant from an anti casino Tribe. That’s the only difference. What was even more astounding were the citizen accusations that Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Martinez are shilling for the casino opposition.  When Councilmember Alvarez engages in the same activity it’s not considered shilling. Strange, isn’t it? There’s an old saying, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Alvarez would be well served to rein in her troops or she may find her glass two story home (second story improvement not recorded nor additional property tax paid) shattered in all of the cross fire. It’s merely an observation.

Another action of note is Councilmember Sherwood’s reversal of position on the casino. When he ran last year he was opposed to the casino. He even met and collaborated with now Mayor Weiers, I and candidate Gary Hirsch, all of whom shared the same anti casino position. The anti casino Tribes even did an independent political mailing expressing their support for Sherwood because he ran on a platform of opposition to the casino. Now, inexplicitly or perhaps not so inexplicitly, he has reversed his stance. He, along with Councilmembers Hugh and Chavira, wrote to the Department of the Interior saying don’t pay attention to Glendale’s opposition to a Tohono O’odham casino. Why has the champion of Westgate abandoned it? Remember all of his talk about the necessity of the Coyotes as an anchor for Westgate because the team would attract traffic to Westgate and keep it viable?  Does he really believe that the casino will help Westgate? Nah. Rumor has it that he was contacted by the pro casino forces right after his election and they may have assured him that if he moved to the dark side they would assist in bank rolling his next election. Was that just too good a deal for Sherwood to pass up? You decide.

So, who is keeping the promise to Glendale’s residents? The promise that a casino does not belong in Glendale, will cost our taxpayers for the supporting infrastructure and will destroy a pledge made by all of the tribes (including the Tohono O’odham) when seeking voter support for the 2002 voter approved Gaming Compact. It’s no longer Sherwood. If he could change his position on this issue so readily, how can we believe what his stance is on other issues? It appears that his guiding principle has become one of pragmatism but what has happened to one’s word being one’s bond?

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to :http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Nov 13

22

So we wait

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 22, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Caitlin McGlade of the Arizona Republic has a story on a Supreme Court case that may affect the Tohono O’odham’s prospects of building a casino in Glendale. Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com//community/glendale/articles/20131118west-valley-casino-appeal-delayed-until-us-supreme-court-decision.html?source=nletter-

The state as well as other stakeholders such as the Tribes opposed to the TO Casino have asked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to wait until the Supreme Court renders a decision on tribal immunity. The Supreme Court schedule begins in October and they hear their last case arguments in April. In May they begin to announce decisions. It is assumed that the 9th Circuit Court will agree and wait until the results of the State of Michigan vs. the Bay Mills Indian Community are rendered.

The TO case has no common ground with the Michigan case but the decision that flows from the Michigan decision will definitively impact the issue of tribal sovereign immunity across the country. The Supreme Court decision may help the Valley tribes stop the TO’s plans but it’s a double-edged sword and will affect the concept of tribal sovereign immunity. How much is anyone’s guess — it could be a little or it could be a lot.  

Sovereign immunity is a complex issue and as with all rights can and has been used positively and negatively. It provides all Indian Tribes with the right to determine their long term destinies and protects them legally. It is a concept not often understood and many have  realized, too late, that they have no legal rights on reservation land.

Lately the local media has offered citizen comments on the issue of the casino. The common theme is that the Tribes opposing the casino are greedy and are attempting to thwart competition. It is a simplistic and false notion offered repeatedly to those who are not invested in the outcome but may have a voice in the ultimate decision. They conveniently ignore a major consequence – the destruction of the State Gaming Compact and its effects. There are people who get it and understand that if the delicate balance achieved by the Compact is destroyed the door is open to see the proliferation of casinos throughout the Phoenix Metro area. There are many other reasons to keep this casino out of Glendale but they have been offered by me and others ad nausea.

So, we wait.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to :http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Nov 13

11

The casino mission: fact finding only

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 11, 2013
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions  | Tagged With: , , , , | 4 Comments

On November 9, 2013 I received the following letter from Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers. The letter and the mailing were underwritten by Keeping the Promise: No Casinos in Neighborhoods. It is a coalition of Indian Tribes opposed to the proposed casino. You may have seen the TV ads this group is running. I’m glad to see that they have stepped up their efforts to educate the public about the negative impacts of a casino in Glendale.  Kudos to Mayor Weiers and Keeping the Promise for clarifying a majority of council’s latest directive. The public should know that Glendale has not capitulated and a majority of council has asked that the impacts of the proposed casino in Glendale be reviewed and that the results be made public.  This fact finding effort does not mean that Glendale supports the Tohono O’odham’s (TO) proposed casino. Over the past 10 months I have offered a great deal of information in refute of the TO’s claims about the positive impacts of a casino in Glendale. If you look through my blog archives you will find at least a dozen casino articles. In support of the Mayor’s and Keeping the Promise’s latest effort, I offer the entire letter for your information:

Dear Fellow Glendale Resident:

The City of Glendale means the world to me. It’s been home to my family for more than 14 years and I’m proud to serve you as your Mayor. I believe you elected me for one very simple reason: To do what’s right for our City. To me, doing what’s right for Glendale means acting without regard for politics or popularity and always keeping focused on our City’s economic well-being, the safety of our residents and the future of our children and families.

That’s why I oppose the off-reservation casino proposal put forward by the Tohono O’odham Nation.

The Nation’s proposal – to build a massive casino at 91st Avenue and Northern – is an issue I have been studying and dealing with since the Tribe unveiled its plan back in 2009. Then, I was in the Arizona Legislature, where I sponsored legislation meant to hold the Nation accountable to the gaming compacts approved by Arizona’s Tribes and voters back in 2002. Today, as your Mayor, I continue to receive input on this issue from neighbors and stakeholders that gives me pause about the impact of this Casino on our City.

What concerns me?

I fear that Tohono O’odham Nation’s revenue and job projection, which have been exposed as wildly optimistic by a number of analyses, will fall far short of reality, creating an unsuccessful “while elephant” that siphons off police, fire and other resources from a City that is already struggling to meet our public safety and infrastructure needs.

Just as importantly, I worry about the impact of the Casino and its accompanying resort and restaurants on the surrounding small businesses in  the area. Dollars spent on gambling or entertainment on the newly christened reservation generate no tax revenue for Glendale – and will inevitably come at the expense of Glendale businesses that have worked hard to make a go of it during a fierce economic downturn.

My other concern has to do with the Tribe itself – an entity that bought its land in secret and did nothing to inform or partner with the City on the Casino until after it was unveiled. In the years since, the Tribe has fought Glendale at every turn, costing our City more than $3 million in legal fees and thousands of man-hours as we have sought to protect our residents and businesses from the encroachment of a Casino located near schools, day care facilities, churches and homes.

Recently, you may have heard that the City Council has agreed to open a dialogue with the Nation. Let me be clear on the aim of this exchange of information. It does not represent support of the Tribe’s project. Instead, it’s a fact-finding conversation, one meant to ascertain the potential benefits and harms that come with having a casino on sovereign land located in this City we all call home. I see this conversation as a positive, since it will bring to the table all concerned for a settling of the facts – which have been sorely lacking during the years of hype and hyperbole.

Rest assured, I will report back to you as the facts come out, to let you know the truth about this controversial project.

In your service,

Jerry Weiers

Mayor, City of Glendale

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to :http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Oct 13

31

Tohono O’odham like a bad penny

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 31, 2013
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A word of advice. When you get older, say 70 on up, avoid getting sick at all costs. Wear a mask or go into isolation to save yourself. I speak from experience. Two weeks ago I caught a cold. You know how it goes. You begin to feel better, almost human, and you resume your schedule with gusto. Then you learn your lesson as it comes back, ten times worse. That is exactly what happened last week. Mercifully I was saved from an untimely death by my doctor’s prescription of a really heavy duty antibiotic.

There’s been a lot of activity regarding the Tohono O’odham’s (TO) proposed casino during the week of October 23, 2013. Where to begin? At the council workshop meeting of October 15, 2013 an agenda item was discussion of starting a dialogue with the TO. In a previous blog I described various councilmembers’ positions on the issue. They did not go as far as opening exclusive dialogue with the TO. Rather council majority asked for an assessment from staff of the consequences to Glendale IF the casino were to be built. This assessment was to include gathering factual information from the TO. Good luck to them on that action. Historically the TO have never been very forthright about their plans. A majority of council gave this direction despite newly hired City Attorney Michael Bailey’s admonition to wait until two outstanding casino issues were resolved.

Then at the regular council meeting of October 22, 2013 council passed as part of its Consent Agenda (no discussion occurred and all items were passed in a single vote) Item 14, a resolution of support to accept a $45,000 grant from the TO for use by the Glendale Youth Project. The Glendale Youth Project is a worthy cause and it is not the issue. The issue is the acceptance of any TO grant. How can this council legally or morally accept money from a group that it has opposed and litigated against and continues, as city policy, to oppose? It boggles the mind. Council is repeatedly and short sightedly sending the wrong signal to our friends and supporters – the State Legislature, our Congressional Delegation and all of the Arizona Tribes opposed to machinations of the TO’s gambit to build a casino in the Phoenix Metropolitan area.

On October 26, 2013 the Glendale Republic ran two viewpoint submissions. The pro-casino faction consisted of Bob Barrett, Mayor of Peoria; Adolfo Gamez, Mayor of Tolleson; and Sharon Wolcott, Mayor of Surprise. I find it ironic that not one of these three communities will host or have to pay a dime for the development of the TO casino and continue to believe the TO hype that somehow this project will benefit their communities.  They embarrassingly trotted out their “East Valley Envy” for all to see. The anti-casino viewpoint was signed by Jim Lane, Mayor of Scottsdale; Mark Mitchell, Mayor of Tempe; Jerry Weiers, Mayor of Glendale; Thomas L. Schoaf, Mayor of Litchfield Park; and John Lewis, Mayor of Gilbert. They get it. They understand the broader picture and the ramifications to the entire Valley should the TO succeed. It’s too bad that some of the West Valley cities are greedily willing to chase a mythical pot of gold at the expense of Glendale.

In the October 27, 2013 edition of the AzEconomy Section of the Republic there is an article about Steve Ellman’s Phoenix-like rise from financial death. Ellman was the former owner of Westgate (until 2011) and co-owner of the Phoenix Coyotes (until 2006).  Here is the link: http://www.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20131026ellman-glendale-coyotes-tribe-deal.html . Part of the story recounted Ellman’s efforts back in 2009 to obtain a $100M investment from the TO. The major city players at that time would have been Ed Beasley, Julie Frisoni, Craig Tindall and Art Lynch. I had heard about such a proposal – not in detail — years ago but dismissed it for a variety of reasons. It was disturbing then and is disturbing now to read it. Ellman was lobbying for a deal that certainly would have benefitted him but not necessarily the City of Glendale. $10M a year for 10 years would have been invested by the TO in the arena AND Westgate. How much would have gone to the arena? Not much. A token amount would have gone toward naming rights but the lion’s share would have been used by Ellman for Westgate. In return for this largesse (read bribe) Glendale would have been required to support the TO’s plan for the casino. The article quotes Ellman as saying, “the deal between the tribe and Glendale ‘would have allowed ME (caps mine) to stay in (sic) the team…and stay in Westgate’.” This unsavory deal was always about Ellman.

The TO continue to press their plan for a casino and we can count on more pressure until the Secretary of the Interior makes his final determination about reservation status and until Representative Trent Franks’ bill is settled one way or another.

If you would like more information about the impact of a casino in Glendale please visit this site: www.keepingthepromiseaz.com . The site recently added information about available county islands within other Valley cities that could become targets for a casino if the TO prevail and break the state compact.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to :http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Oct 13

18

Council left its steak dinner on the table

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 18, 2013
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

The City Council workshop meeting of October 15, 2013 had a little something for everyone. Since Mayor Weiers has been at the helm all of their meetings have been extraordinarily brief. Not so this time.

The first item was an informational presentation on light rail in Glendale by Steve Banta, CEO of Valley Metro. Keep in mind that even if all the stars aligned, Glendale still wouldn’t see light rail for a minimum of ten years. The corridors under study remain the same: Northern Avenue to Bethany Home Road; Camelback Road; and the Loop 101. The only strong sentiment was expressed by Vice Mayor Knaack whose business is located in downtown Glendale. She remains adamantly opposed to light rail being sited along Glendale Avenue. Ummm…I guess she didn’t get the memo about Mesa. They deliberately sited their light rail on their Main Street to spur redevelopment. Their experiment with light rail has been so successful that Mesa is paying for an additional 2 miles from a city fund dedicated to street improvements.

Council moved on to the next item, Councilmember Chavira’s plea to get more amenities in the Western Regional Park (now called Heroes Park) at 83rd and Bethany Home Road. He proposed as temporary, soccer fields; or the addition of sod to green the park; or an archery range. He needs to bring something home to his constituents before he runs for reelection. Poor Sammy, it won’t be park improvements. He ran into the same brick wall as I. Keep in mind that a majority of the former council diverted $6M earmarked for the park to the construction of the Public Safety Training Facility. It was a spite move orchestrated by the former Mayor because I refused to become a member of her team. Council has an obligation to restore that $6M deliberately and willfully taken from the park. Chavira heard a resounding “No” from his fellow councilmembers to his requests. Even Alvarez said “No” and called for prioritization of needs. They fell back on the council policy directive that mandates maintaining and improving the parks already in place. They grudgingly agreed to move forward on the concept of an archery range provided it “was at no cost to the city.” I have never seen a project come forward that didn’t involve some cost to the city. In addition when residents of the area publicly participated in the planning of the park there was not one request for an archery range. In all my years on Council I received one call from a father who wanted to establish an archery range in a nearby retention area for his son so that he could conveniently practice. As the Director of Parks and Recreation Erik Strunk stated, “There will be no available funds in the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program until Fiscal Year 2018-19.” At that time all seven councilmembers will be vying for the use of those funds.

The Sister Cities Program was next on the agenda.  This item was Councilmember Sherwood’s request. His motive was to partner with Canadian cities that host hockey and perhaps to boost Canadian attendance at Coyotes hockey games. It was a subject that didn’t engender a lot of comment. However, Alvarez and Chavira broadened the concept to include Mexican cities. Council directed this initiative be shifted to the private sector for further exploration and called on the Civic Pride Ambassadors, the Chamber of Commerce and the Convention and Visitors Bureau to lead the effort.

Now we get to the meat and potatoes…er…steak and potatoes of the workshop…the Tohono O’odham and its proposed casino. The new City Attorney, Michael Bailey, presented information first. He said for 5 years the city’s position has been in opposition as expressed by various city council approved resolutions. Until council passes a new resolution expressing a new direction, the city will remain opposed to the proposed casino. He went on to say the city is no longer involved in any active litigation against the TO’s plan. Everyone is waiting for the results of two actions: U.S. Representative Trent Franks bill currently enjoying bipartisan support which has passed the House and moved on to the Senate; and the 9th Circuit’s Court mandate that the U.S. Department of Interior further clarify its justification for provisionally placing the land within Glendale in reservation status. He also expected that no matter what the Department of Interior’s decision, we can expect further litigation.  The City Attorney advised waiting until these issues were resolved before moving in any direction. He likened the current situation to council’s ordering and paying for a steak dinner and then just before it arrives, getting up and walking out of the restaurant. He alluded to the fact that entering into a dialogue with the TO could send the wrong signal to our friends and supporters – the other Tribes, the State Legislature and our Congressional delegation.

Despite his sage advice, here’s how the council lined up on the issue. Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Martinez remain firmly opposed and counseled waiting until the issues resolve. As expected Councilmembers Alvarez and Hugh are in the TO camp, breathlessly awaiting the casino’s arrival as if it is the cure for all of Glendale’s financial woes. Councilmember Chavira, in whose district the proposed casino would be located, has never been one to take a strong position on anything, maintained a fence sitting posture (painful to say the least). If he had a brain, he’d listen to and represent his constituents who will be dramatically affected and simply do not want the casino. Councilmember Sherwood after proclaiming that he was still opposed to the casino then trotted out a litany of reasons in its support. Vice Mayor Knaack, ever ready to appease everyone and anyone, listed the reasons why a casino was not in anyone’s best interest then flopped to supporting dialogue with the TO. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. What happened when the European nations practiced appeasement?

The result of the long and sometimes contentious discussion was 5 of 7 councilmembers supported directing staff to fact find (including dialogue with the TO) to produce an assessment of the impacts of the proposed casino on Glendale. I find it amazing that 5 of them believe they will get specific facts from the TO. This is the same Tribe that hid its ownership of the land in question for years. This is the same Tribe, when asked by Glendale staff, for specifics regarding their proposed casino, offered only conceptual ideas, nothing concrete. This is the same Tribe that publicly stumped for the State Gaming Compact in 2002, knowing that they already had plans to violate the spirit of the compact. There is and should not be, justifiably, any trust regarding assertions that they make. What’s the old saying? Trust but verify?

Council’s reasons in support of dialogue were superficial and may have been motivated by the people who spoke at their last council meeting (by the way, many were not from Glendale). This council left their steak dinner on the table having already paid for it, unwilling to wait and to let the issues play out and knowing that possible further litigation will not see an end to this situation for several years.

© Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Sep 13

26

Tribes say “Thank You”…and so do I

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 26, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

On Sunday, September 22, 2013 there was a full page newspaper ad by 7 Arizona Tribes thanking members of the Arizona delegation for their bipartisan support of H.R. 1410, The Keep the Promise Act. Many no longer get the newspaper so I have taken the liberty of relaying their comments in full. As they say “Thank You” – so do I as well as the many Yucca district residents that would be directly and adversely affected.thank you

THANK YOU

An open letter to members of the Arizona House delegation and members of the U.S. House of Representatives

In 2002, the voters of Arizona approved Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming and Self-Reliance Act. The campaign to approve that measure, supported and funded by 17 Indian Tribes from all over the state, made a promise to Arizona residents. We told the voters that Indian casinos would remain restricted to traditional tribal lands and that no additional casinos would open in metropolitan Phoenix.

ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TOOK A HUGE STEP TOWARD REAFFIRMING THAT PROMISE WHEN A BIPARTISAN SUPERMAJORITY PASSED H.R. 1410, THE KEEP THE PROMISE ACT.

Jointly sponsored by Arizona Congressional Representatives Trent Franks, Ed Pastor, Ann Kirkpatrick, Paul Gosar, David Schweikert and Matt Salmon in collaboration with Representatives Jared Huffman, John Conyers and Dan Kildee, The Keep The Promise Act was made necessary when one tribe – the Tohono O’odham – decided to contradict the promise made to voters by pursuing a tribal casino development in Glendale, near neighborhoods, schools, homes and places of worship.

We want to express our deep gratitude for the leadership shown by Reps. Franks, Pastor, Kirkpatrick, Gosar, Schweikert and Salmon on this issue. Their effort sets new precedents for bipartisan cooperation, as these representatives worked together tirelessly to hold every Arizona tribe accountable to the promises made to voters a decade ago: To keep casinos out of neighborhoods and to preserve the balance of Indian gaming that has existed for many years, to the benefit of Tribes and Arizona residents.

Now, thanks to the leadership of the members listed above, The Keep The Promise Ace will move on to the U.S. Senate, where we have every expectation of the same level of bipartisan support. That is why H.R. 1410 matters so much and why our Tribes and many other Valley cities will continue to support its immediate passage.

Respectfully,

CHAIRWOMAN SHERRY CORDOVA

Cocopah Tribe

PRESIDENT RUBEN BALDERAS

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

PRESIDENT KEENY ESCALANTI

Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe

GOV. GREGORY MENDOZA

Gila River Indian Community

CHAIRWOMAN SHERRY COUNTS

Hualapai Tribe

GOVERNOR ARLEN P. QUETAWKI, SR

Pueblo of the Zuni

PRESIDENT DIANE ENOS

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

Sep 13

11

Glendale stay the course

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 11, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

On September 11, 2013 the Glendale Republic ran an article by Caitlin McGlade entitled Glendale softens harsh casino tone. It makes me angry to see the AzRepulsive begin its not so subtle media infomercial in an effort to sway public opinion in support of the Tohono O’odham (TO) Tribe’s ambitions.  In my latest unscientific blog poll I asked the question, Is the Arizona Republic’s reporting fair and balanced? Of the 50 respondents, 40 (80%) said, “No” and 10 (20%) said, “Yes.” 4 out of 5 people no longer believe that its coverage is fair and balanced and recognize that its reporting is slanted.

I stand with Congressman Trent Franks, the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (and all of the tribes in the state supporting them). I do not support a casino in Glendale and I believe a dialogue with the TO only becomes necessary if all legal avenues are closed and the Tribe prevails. It sends the wrong message.

I am not going to repeat all of the reasons why planting a casino in Glendale should not happen. Instead, in April of 2013 I authored a 5 part blog series on the effects of a casino. If you have not read them, please take the time to go back and check them out:

  •    April 11, 2013      Casino, to be or not to be, Part 1
  •    April 15, 2013      Casino…promise made, promise broken, Part 2
  •    April 16, 2013      Casino…good, bad or indifferent?, Part 3
  •    April 22, 2013       A casino is a casino…no matter where it is, Part 4
  •    April 24, 2013      Casino…it’s lose, lose for everyone, Part 5

What truly dumbfounds me is that one of the major rationales for keeping the Coyotes hockey team at Glendale’s Jobing.com Arena is that it generates more people and therefore more sales tax to the businesses (and the city) in Westgate. Yet Councilmember Sherwood apparently believes that the casino will do no harm to Westgate and says, “There’s not enough right now to keep people here. The casino just offers another thing for folks to do if they’re in town.” Is he nuts? Even Peoria Mayor Bob Barrett who has supported the casino from the start acknowledges, “In the short term, it (the casino) will probably hurt Westgate…” Sherwood is speaking from both sides of his mouth. On the one hand keeping the hockey team is good for Westgate and on the other the casino is good for Westgate as “another thing for folks to do.” We know that the casino will siphon discretionary dollars away from Westgate. Councilmember Sherwood, you can’t have it both ways.

Vice Mayor Knaack is performing her usual wringing of hands routine and practicing “kumbaya” with her comment, “We can’t keep on and on and on with this.” She just wants everyone to get along. Whatever happened to sticking to one’s principles? Is this another example like her avowal that she supports the downtown merchants as she votes approval for a liquor license they opposed?

Councilmember Martinez gets it with, “How do casinos attract their clients? Cheap booze, cheap food and the cost of the rooms are minimal. Here (at Westgate) we have hotels and restaurants paying taxes and helping us pay off our debts to the arena and everything else and the tribe comes in with a clean hand and they don’t have to pay anything.” Bravo Councilmember Martinez. You do get it and you are sticking to your principles.

The Gila River Indian Community said, “…any dialogue between the city and the TO would have no bearing on the Gila River’s position.” Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos said it best in this statement, “If the commitments to keep tribal casinos out of neighborhoods made by all 17 Arizona tribes during Prop. 202 negotiations were being kept, cities like Glendale wouldn’t find themselves in these circumstances, vulnerable to broaching risky developments like this off-reservation casino, exasperated further by the current economic climate in Glendale.” Bravo President Enos. You get it too. I wonder what the Republic’s position would be if the Tribes pulled their considerable advertising dollars?

Let’s at least acknowledge that the TO and its supporters are preying on Glendale’s weakened financial position and using it as leverage to further their cause. Before its indebtedness became a cause célèbre leaders in Glendale stood on principle. How much gold are our elected officials willing to sell out for? Glendale must stay the course.

PS: In the September 12, 2013 edition of the Arizona Republic the story ran again. Only this time the comments from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the Gila River Indian Community are omitted while keeping the TO’s comments intact. Way to go Arizona Republic!

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Lawwho have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Aug 13

3

The lesson of Graton Rancheria

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 3, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

casino 1Since California voters approved Las Vegas-style gambling on Indian lands more than a dozen years ago, it has grown to a $6.9 billion industry, with about 70 tribes operating casinos. Some of the Tribes in California operate in the same fashion as the Tohono O’odham have in Arizona.

In the early 1900s the federal government authorized the purchase of lands called “Rancherias” throughout the state of California. In 1958 Congress terminated the federal trust status of some of the California Rancherias – Graton Rancheria. In the 1970s after a series of lawsuits by terminated Tribes, the federal government reversed itself by settling these lawsuits with a series of stipulations. One of those stipulations required the Secretary of the Interior to recognize the seventeen California Tribes that had been terminated. However since Graton Rancheria had not participated in any of the lawsuits it was not entitled to removal of its termination status. In 1999 federal legislation was passed to restore federal recognition to this Tribe. Subsequent to that action California voters approved gambling on Indian lands just prior to Arizona’s similar action of 2002.

SanManuel1 house adjacent

Residence adjacent to San Manuel
Tribal casino. Note the wrought iron
protection.

Sonoma County, California is facing an unprecedented situation:  the prospect of five to six tribal casinos stretching along the 101 corridor, all of them in or adjacent to Sonoma County cities. How does Sonoma County compare to Maricopa County? Sonoma County (1,768 sq.mi.) is about 1/5 the size of Maricopa County (9,224 sq.mi.). Its population (488,116) is about 10% of Maricopa County (3.88 million). Yet this county, 1/5 the size of Maricopa County is facing the prospect of 6 Tribal casinos. The entire allocation for Maricopa County per the state Gaming Act is 7, all of which must be outside incorporated cities and on reservation land. If, as a result of the Tohono O’odham’s successful attempt to site a casino within Glendale and the destruction of the 2002 Arizona Gaming Act, the floodgates will open and just as in Sonoma County, we could see a rash of casinos springing up within cities throughout Maricopa County.

Here is a link to a July 17, 2013 article that fleshes out Sonoma County’s problems: http://www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2013/07/19/Casino-Row-Sonoma-COunty-Facing-Multiple-Tribal-Casinos-All-in-Cities_201307199800.html. The Graton Rancheria casino, under construction, in Phase I will be 450,000 S.F. and have 3,000 slot machines and 200 table games. In comparison the proposed TO casino will be 150,000 S.F. and have 1,089 slot machines and 75 table games.

What about the scads of construction jobs promised by the TO? The TO, in an effort to sell its proposed casino promises 6,000 construction jobs.  Yet the number of construction jobs generated by even larger casino projects nationally averages about 2,000 construction workers. While seeking permission to move forward with their proposed casino, the Graton Rancheria promised Sonoma County union workers that they would be first in line for construction jobs. Since that empty promise, out-of-area workers are being brought in. Workers are being brought in from “Nevada and the L.A. area” and even as far away as Alabama to work on the Graton Rancheria casino/hotel project. So much for reducing Sonoma County’s 6.5% unemployment rate. You can learn more about the casino situation in California by using these links: www.stopthecasino101.com and  http://www.pechanga.net/category/issue-tag/graton-rancheria.

If the TO prevails is this Arizona’s future? Will we see casinos everywhere once the state Gaming Compact is destroyed? Will we see construction jobs promised but not delivered as out-of-state workers and tribal workers (a percentage of the jobs must go to tribal members) are used? Are we prepared to suffer job displacement and the loss of local businesses unable to compete for disposable income? In previous blogs I outlined the social and economic impacts of casinos and they are not healthy. In the name of “enhancing revenue streams” are we willing to accept further degradation of our societal values? I am not. I hope you are not, as well.

Fair Use and Copyright

Aug 13

2

Supporters of the casino still don’t get it

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 2, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

newsOn August 1, 2013 The Glendale Star’s editor, Carolyn Dryer, delivered a commentary entitled Stop the waste; let Nation build resort/casino. As commentary obviously this is her position as well as that of the Glendale Star. One would expect no other position by the Glendale Star and Ms. Dryer considering that she has advocated for the position of Councilmember Alvarez (an avid supporter of the Tohono O’odham [TO]). Ms. Dryer even attended a meeting on the subject (along with other supporters) hosted by Alvarez at her home. That same meeting had as an attendee a Tohono O’odham hired consultant. I’m not sure why Ms. Dryer simply didn’t let TO Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. write her commentary – after all it is the TO party line almost word for word. She questions the motives of the plaintiffs — the City of Glendale, the State of Arizona and the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (supported by the way, by virtually every other Indian Nation in the state).  She implies that all of these parties are motivated by greed. Oh really? The City of Glendale seeks to maintain local control of its land (a county island within its municipal boundaries); the State seeks to maintain the integrity of states’ rights within its own borders; and the Indian tribes seek to protect the 2002 state-wide, voter approved State Gaming Act. Blatant greed falls on the shoulders of the Tohono O’odham. Their many deceptions give testimony to their willingness to sacrifice the Gaming Act to satisfy their desire for more revenue. gambling 3She then dismisses the risk to Indian gaming in this state if the Tohono O’odham prevails. It has been acknowledged by many over the years that if the TO succeed it destroys a carefully crafted state gaming compact and opens the flood gates for gaming to be sited anywhere — perhaps even near your neighborhood. Ms. Dryer then delivers what she believes is her coup de grace…job creation. Again, this is the TO party line. The Tohono O’odham have said repeatedly there will be 6,000 construction jobs. The Maryland Live! Casino is a 332,500 square foot facility (twice the size of the proposed TO casino) and anticipates creating 2,750 construction-related jobs (half that number would be approximately 1,400 jobs and reflects a much more realistic number for a TO facility much smaller). In an effort to “sell” the benefits of the TO casino the numbers have been inflated. It is a subtle form of deception, no doubt, but not unexpected. Problems throughout the country related to casino construction have surfaced. There is no guarantee by the TO that only local construction companies or workers will be used. Here is an example that demonstrates the out-of-state use of construction workers – a Press Release from a coalition of unions in California issued on January 15, 2013, “ROHNERT PARK, CA: Graton Rancheria’s (my note: a coalition of Indian tribes) promises to Sonoma County union workers have been dashed by lay-offs of local union members as out-of-area workers are being brought in to take their places. Sonoma County union construction workers report that workers are being brought in from “Nevada and the L.A. area” and even as far away as Alabama to work on the Graton Rancheria casino/hotel project in Rohnert Park. It is amazing that the supporters of the casino still don’t get it. In their lust for job creation they are willing to accept a host of problems that are the baggage that a casino brings to a community, especially one with 10,000 homes and apartments adjacent to it. The sacrifice of our community is not worth the promises made.

Fair Use and Copyright

« Previous Page — Next Page »